by Peter Hu, PhD, FACSc, FASAHP, CG(ASCP)^CM, MB^CM, MLS^CM, Professor and Associate Dean Research and Strategic Initiatives School of Health Professions at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, NAACLS Board of Directors’ President 2019 -2021

In the realm of clinical laboratory science education, prescriptive standards such as student-to-faculty ratios and mandated clinical service hours are often implemented with the intention of ensuring quality and consistency. However, these well-meaning standards can sometimes hinder the educational process rather than enhance it, especially for new program directors who may find these rigid guidelines challenging to navigate.  Over a decade ago, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation recognized the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach and shifted from a traditional prescriptive model to an outcome-based approach. This transition was driven by the understanding that educational quality is better measured by the competencies and skills students acquire rather than by strict adherence to numerical standards.  An outcome-based approach allows for greater flexibility and innovation in educational programs. It encourages institutions to focus on the actual learning outcomes and the effectiveness of their teaching methods. This shift empowers educators to tailor their programs to meet the specific needs of their students and the evolving demands of the healthcare industry.  For new program directors, this approach provides the freedom to design curricula that are more responsive and adaptive, fostering an environment where both students and faculty can thrive. By prioritizing outcomes over rigid standards, educational institutions can better prepare students for the complexities and challenges of the clinical laboratory science field. In my 20+ years as a site visitor for NAACLS, I’ve witnessed countless creative solutions born out of necessity. Despite challenges like limited supplies, tight budgets, or staffing shortages, programs have consistently found innovative ways to “make it work.” It’s truly inspiring to see these efforts still lead to producing quality graduates, high first-attempt pass rates, and successful employment outcomes. This success was achieved in a non-prescriptive environment that focused on outcomes.  In the following sections, I will delve deeper into why an outcome-based curriculum is superior to a prescriptive-based curriculum.

1. Lack of Flexibility

Prescriptive standards can be rigid, leaving little room for adaptation to the unique needs of different programs and students. For instance, a fixed student-to-faculty ratio does not account for the varying levels of experience and expertise among faculty members. Some educators may be capable of effectively managing larger groups, while others might excel with smaller, more focused cohorts. Similarly, mandated clinical rotation hours may not consider the diverse learning paces and styles of students, potentially leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn’t serve everyone equally.

2. Quality Over Quantity

Focusing on numerical standards can sometimes overshadow the importance of the quality of education. For example, simply meeting a required number of clinical rotation hours does not guarantee that students are gaining meaningful, hands-on experience. The emphasis should be on the depth and relevance of the clinical experiences rather than just the quantity. Similarly, a low student-to-faculty ratio is beneficial only if the faculty members are well-qualified and capable of providing high-quality instruction and mentorship.

3. Resource Allocation

Strict adherence to prescriptive standards can strain resources, particularly in institutions with limited funding. Maintaining a specific student-to-faculty ratio might require hiring additional faculty, which can be financially burdensome. This could lead to compromises in other areas, such as laboratory equipment and facilities, which are equally crucial for a comprehensive education in clinical laboratory science.

4. Innovation and Adaptation

Education, especially in a field as dynamic as clinical laboratory science, requires continuous innovation and adaptation. Prescriptive standards can stifle creativity and discourage educators from experimenting with new teaching methods or curricular designs that might better serve their students. Flexibility allows programs to evolve in response to advancements in the field and the changing needs of the healthcare industry.

5. Student Engagement and Motivation

When educational standards are overly prescriptive, students may feel like they are merely ticking boxes rather than engaging in a meaningful learning process. This can lead to decreased motivation and engagement. Allowing for more personalized and flexible learning paths can help students feel more invested in their education and better prepared for their future careers.

6. Leveraging your resources

Leveraging advisory board members and clinical affiliates is crucial for shaping the curriculum of a clinical laboratory science program. These stakeholders provide invaluable insights into current industry standards and emerging trends, ensuring that the curriculum remains relevant and up-to-date. By continuously updating entry-level competencies based on feedback from these experts, programs can better prepare students for the demands of the workforce. Additionally, modifying the curriculum to incorporate real-world experiences and practical skills suggested by clinical affiliates helps bridge the gap between academic learning and professional practice, ultimately enhancing the quality and employability of graduates.

Conclusion

While prescriptive standards in clinical laboratory science education aim to ensure consistency and quality, they can sometimes be counterproductive. A more flexible approach that prioritizes the quality of education, adapts to the unique needs of students and faculty, and encourages innovation can lead to more effective and meaningful learning experiences. By moving away from rigid standards, educational institutions can better prepare students for the dynamic and evolving field of clinical laboratory science.